Background: Temporary fixation with an external fixator is used for numerous indications in orthopedic trauma surgery. It is unclear whether primary wound healing or secondary open-wound healing after removal of the external fixator should be advocated for the pin site. This study compares primary wound closure with secondary wound healing for the pin site. The primary aim is to compare pin-site infection rates. The secondary aim is to compare time to wound healing and esthetic outcome. The hypothesis was that primary wound closure does not lead to more infections than secondary wound healing.Methods and design: This is a prospective, randomized controlled, blinded, monocenter study based on a noninferiority design. To obtain an equal patient population and groups, all pin-entry sites of the patients are treated alternately at the time of removal of the external fixator with primary wound closure and secondary wound healing. Patients are randomized according to whether the proximal pin-entry site is treated with wound closure or by secondary open-wound healing, from which the further sequence develops. The pre-and postoperative protocol is standardized for all pin-entry sites. A photo documentation of the pin-entry sites takes place 2 and 52 weeks postoperatively during the routine clinical follow-up visits. Further controls take place at 6, 12 and 26 weeks after pin removal. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of primary wound closure compared to secondary wound healing in terms of postoperative wound infections according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions. The secondary outcomes are time to complete wound healing (days) and esthetical outcome (subjective preference of patients and Vancouver Scar Scale score). Discussion: This study aims to answer how to deal with the pin site after removal of the external fixator. To date, no routine and generally accepted protocol exists for the management of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. This prospective, randomized controlled, blinded monocenter trial should determine whether primary wound closure or secondary wound healing should be advocated after removal of the external fixator.
Background: The aim of this single-center randomized controlled trial was to compare primary wound closure using a suture with secondary wound healing of pin sites after removal of temporary external fixation.Methods: This noninferiority trial included all patients who were treated with a temporary external fixator on an upper or lower extremity at 1 institution. The primary outcome was pin-site infection. Secondary outcomes were measured at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks and included all other complications, time to pin-site wound healing (in weeks), the most satisfactory pin site as rated by the patient, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The most proximal pin site was randomly allocated (1:1) to either primary closure or secondary wound healing, and the other pin sites were treated alternately.
Background: Temporary fixation with an external fixator is used for numerous indications in orthopedic trauma surgery. It is unclear whether primary wound healing or the secondary open wound healing after removal of the external fixator should be advocated for the pin site. This study compares primary wound closure with secondary wound healing for the pin sites. The primary aim is to compare the infections rates of the pin site. Secondary aim is to compare time to wound healing and esthetic outcome. The hypothesis was that primary wound closure does not lead to more infections than secondary wound healing. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled and blinded monocenter study based on a non-inferiority design. To obtain an equal patient population and groups, all pin entry sites of the patients are treated alternately at the time of removal of the external fixator with primary wound closure and secondary wound healing. Patients are randomized whether the proximal pin entry site is treated with wound closure or by secondary open wound healing, from which the further sequence develops. The pre- and postoperative protocol is standardized for all pin entry sites. A photo documentation of the pin entry sites takes place 2 and 52 weeks postoperatively during the routine clinically follow-up visits. Further controls take place after 6, 12 and 26 weeks after the removal. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of primary wound closure compared to secondary wound healing in terms of postoperative wound infections according to center of disease control (CDC). The secondary outcomes are time to complete wound healing (days) and esthetical outcome (Subjective preference of patients and Vancouver scar scale). Discussion: This study aims in answering how to deal with the pin site after removal of the external fixator. To date, no routine and generally accepted protocol exists for the management of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. This prospective, randomized, blinded monocenter trial will answer if primary wound closure or secondary wound healing should be advocated after removal of the external fixator.
Background: Temporary fixation with an external fixator is used for numerous indications in orthopedic trauma surgery. It is unclear whether primary wound healing or the secondary open wound healing after removal of the external fixator should be advocated for the pin site. This study compares primary wound closure with secondary wound healing for the pin sites. The primary aim is to compare the infections rates of the pin site. Secondary aim is to compare time to wound healing and esthetic outcome. The hypothesis was that primary wound closure does not lead to more infections than secondary wound healing. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled and blinded monocenter study based on a non-inferiority design. To obtain an equal patient population and groups, all pin entry sites of the patients are treated alternately at the time of removal of the external fixator with primary wound closure and secondary wound healing. Patients are randomized whether the proximal pin entry site is treated with wound closure or by secondary open wound healing, from which the further sequence develops. The pre- and postoperative protocol is standardized for all pin entry sites. A photo documentation of the pin entry sites takes place 2 and 52 weeks postoperatively during the routine clinically follow-up visits. Further controls take place after 6, 12 and 26 weeks after the removal. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of primary wound closure compared to secondary wound healing in terms of postoperative wound infections according to center of disease control (CDC). The secondary outcomes are time to complete wound healing (days) and esthetical outcome (Subjective preference of patients and Vancouver scar scale). Discussion: This study aims in answering how to deal with the pin site after removal of the external fixator. To date, no routine and generally accepted protocol exists for the management of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. This prospective, randomized, blinded monocenter trial will answer if primary wound closure or secondary wound healing should be advocated after removal of the external fixator.
Background: Temporary fixation with an external fixator is used for numerous indications in orthopedic trauma surgery. It is unclear whether primary wound healing or the secondary open wound healing after removal of the external fixator should be advocated for the pin site. This study compares primary wound closure with secondary wound healing for the pin sites. The primary aim is to compare the infections rates of the pin site. Secondary aim is to compare time to wound healing and esthetic outcome. The hypothesis was that primary wound closure does not lead to more infections than secondary wound healing. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled and blinded monocenter study based on a non-inferiority design. To obtain an equal patient population and groups, all pin entry sites of the patients are treated alternately at the time of removal of the external fixator with primary wound closure and secondary wound healing. Patients are randomized whether the proximal pin entry site is treated with wound closure or by secondary open wound healing, from which the further sequence develops. The pre- and postoperative protocol is standardized for all pin entry sites. A photo documentation of the pin entry sites takes place 2 and 52 weeks postoperatively during the routine clinically follow-up visits. Further controls take place after 6, 12 and 26 weeks after the removal. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of primary wound closure compared to secondary wound healing in terms of postoperative wound infections according to center of disease control (CDC). The secondary outcomes are time to complete wound healing (days) and esthetical outcome (Subjective preference of patients and Vancouver scar scale). Discussion: This study aims in answering how to deal with the pin site after removal of the external fixator. To date, no routine and generally accepted protocol exists for the management of pin sites after removal of the external fixator. This prospective, randomized, blinded monocenter trial will answer if primary wound closure or secondary wound healing should be advocated after removal of the external fixator.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.